I would like to submit a proposal to improve cameras. Sometimes there is a problem with WIFI (it does not reach the camera). What do you think that the module responsible for receiving the signal from the router should be located not in the camera itself, but in the charger? Usually, the charger connects to the socket in the house, that is, close to the router, while the power cable to the camera can be 8 m long and therefore the WIFI signal may not reach the camera. If the WIFI module was in the charger, the problem could be solved, because the signal would be “caught” by the charger and fed to the camera by the cable. Is it technically possible?

My guess is that because of the way that the hardware is sourced by Wyze, there’s little to no chance that they are going to be able to implement this. So I’d suggest that in such cases, you consider a wifi extender or mesh network or similar if your network doesn’t have sufficient reach.

A good quality extender has worked wonders for me. In fact I seem to get better reception from the furthest camera that is connected to the extender then I do with closer ones (all my cameras 3 of them are outside)

Extending the WiFi network is the best way to address in my experience. It’s easy to do and all devices benefit. Same SSID is the key.

Roku have implemented the USB based antenna with their Streaming Stick+. The USB cable is proprietary and has the antenna built in to it. Interestingly they opted to use a mini USB connector so that it’s different from what the majority of people have. This kind of solves the problem of people using the wrong cable. Bottom line is that the performance of the external antenna built into the power cable is superb. They did this as 4k video bitrate is 4 times higher than 1080p. E.g. 16Mbps vs 4Mbps. Wyze is 1.5Mbps at best and a fraction of this at 360p.

The USB power cable for wifi antenna idea and USB power cable with wired Ethernet are related concepts and possibly of value as an optional kit.